Re: silly behavior of factor(6)

[Geert Hendrickx <ghen%telenet.be@localhost>]

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 08:16:09PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> And 1 has no prime factors either. That's great, but the whole point of
> this thread is to strike a balance between what's strictly meaningful and
> what makes the most ad hoc sense.



If there's no concensus then why not add an option to factor(6) for a
strictly mathematically correct mode vs. more predictable/easy to parse
output?


        Geert


-- 
Geert Hendrickx  -=-  ghen%telenet.be@localhost  -=-  PGP: 0xC4BB9E9F
This e-mail was composed using 100% recycled spam messages!